- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner in writ petition No. 2020 of 1995 is an advocate of this Court. Petitioner No. 1 in writ petition No. 3587 of 1995 is registered Association of the Employees and Officers of U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), of which petitioner No. 2 is the President. They have filed these writ petitions challeng ing the thirteenth amendment dated September 7, 1994 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1954, made under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution dispensing with the consultation with the Commission on the matters relating to appoint ment by promotion to the State Civil service and post and the principle to be followed in making such appointment. Consultation with the Commission as regards the appointment by direct recruitment to ibe State Civil service and post has also been reduced/curtailed substantially.
(2.) BOTH the Commission and the State Government have filed their counter-affidavits and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the peti tioner, Sri Rakesh Owivedi, learned Additional Advocate-General and Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the Commission. We have also heard the learned counsel for the interveners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned regulations on two grounds, viz. (i) they are outside the purview of Proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution and amount to fraud on the Constitution ; and (ii) they are unreasonable, arbitrary and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned Additional Advocate General apart from disputing the above contentions, has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions at the instance of the peti tioners. Before dealing with the main issue it is necessary to deal with the Primarily objection at threshold. Petitioner in writ petition No. 2020 of 1995 is a practising Advocate of this Court. He filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation. His grievance is that the impugned regulations nave been issued in violation of constitutional obligations and they have caused injury to the public interest. He says that he being an advocate practising before this Court is vitally interested in the welfare of the public and the public interest and if the impugned regulations are implemented the Commission will become a non- entity, and the State Government will be free to make appointment by promotion or even by direct recruitment to any post and the service in the Scale without regard to merit, which will ultimately affect the rule of law as welt as law and order in the State. In writ petition No. 3587 of 1995 the petitioner No. 1 is Association of the employees and officers of the Commission. Its grievance is that in view of the impugned regulations the working of the Commission will be reduced, which may lead to retrenchment of some of its employees.
(3.) IT is true that a person who files a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution must be a person aggrieved by the action or the order impugned in the writ petition. This is the rule which has to be followed in a private litigation which can only be maintained at the instance of the aggriev ed person. Such a rule has, however, been relaxed in public interest litigation by a series of decisions of Supreme Court according to which any person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest for initiating such an action for purpose of redressal of the public wrong or public injury, can file a writ petition. Reference, in this connection, may be made to Janta Dal v. H. C. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 ; D. C. Wadha v. State of U. P. . AIR 1987 579 and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 19 91 SC 1902 ). A practicing advocate has sufficient interest to maintain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation, if by the impugned action the public interest of public good is really being affected. The fact that the practising advocate has such a right and interest to file writ petition by way of public interest litigation for the redressal of grievance relating to public interest, has been recognised by the Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149. Recently in Jai Shanker Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1993 SC 1906 a writ petition at the instance of an advocate before the High Court and appeal arising therefrom before the Supreme Court, were entertained. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition No. 2020 of 1995 has, therefore, to be rejected. The grievance of the petitioners in writ petition No. 3587 of 1995 is purely speculative. Their case is that if the impugned amendment is imple mented there will be hardly any work with the Commission on account of which there is likelihood of retrenchment of the Commission's employee. Such an interest is too remote to be given judicial recognition. That apart, Government in para 3 of its counter-affidavit has stated that there is no intention or proposal of the Government to abolish any post created in the Commission. Apprehension of the petitioner regarding retrenchment of the employees of the Commission has thus been denied, the interest of the petitioner being purely speculative without any reasonable basis, this writ petition is misconceived and is not maintainable.;